Wednesday, 4 August 2010

What really happened to the Banu Qurayza?

Part 1: The siege, the surrender & the intercession of al-Aus

After the Battle of the Ditch Muhammad attacks the last of the large Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qurayza. After a 25 days siege, they surrender unconditionally. In the end, all 600-700 males of the tribe are killed and the women and children sold into slavery.Muslims have many versions trying explain away the cruelty of these events and are trying shift them blame away from Muhammad to the Jews themselves. We will not argue the Banu Qurayza are 100% innocent angels, or the Muslims are 100% evil devils. This is not and never was the claim. In every war, both sides commit injustices and do evil things. And in each war, the losing side has to pay some penalty. We do not expect otherwise. But the kind of penalty and its relationship to the crime is a valid question. This paper is an examination of the early Muslim sources to give a detailed account of the events. Instead of responding to various Muslim constructions one by one, since there are as many versions as there is creativity, we will rather look at the account as it is reported by Ibn Ishaq in his word Sirat Rasul Allah available in the abridged edition of Ibn Hisham, and translated by A. Guillaume under the title The Life of Muhammad. This is is by far the oldest (written) account of Muhammad's life in regard to the date of its first composition. Besides this work we will make use of a number of hadith as found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The issue is what kind of character this event reveals in Muhammad, since this is part of the evidence for or against him being a true prophet of God. Muslims often argue that the exemplary character of Muhammad is (part of) the proof that his is a true prophet. Such a claim should be investigated. We all agree that Ghengis Khan, or Stalin were cruel men. That is fact of history. And we accept it as it is. It has not much influence on our daily life (at least if none of our direct family or friends were victims of Stalin). But nobody denies it because it has no direct personal relevance what kind of man Stalin was. We are not called to imitate Stalin.

With Muhammad on the other hand, his character is not only used as proof for his prophethood, his life is taken to be normative in many ways for the Muslims. He is declared to be the model for mankind. Therefore we need to look whom we are called to take as our model and whether he should be taken as a model. These two aspects imply that we need to look at his life in detail.

After the Quraysh have retreated back to Mecca, Ibn Ishaq's report on the battle of the trench ends with the words

In the morning the apostle and the Muslims left the trench and returned to Medina, laying their arms aside. [Sirat, p. 460]

But the rest after the battle is shortly after interrupted as the next paragraph in Sirat continues with

THE RAID ON B. QURAYZA

According to what al-Zuhri told me, at the time of the noon prayers Gabriel came to the apostle wearing an embroidered turban and riding on a mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He asked the apostle if he had abandoned fighting, and when he said that he had he said that the angels had not yet laid aside their arms and that he had just come from pursuing the enemy. 'God commands you, Muhammad, to go to B. Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold.'

The prophet ordered it to be announced that none should perform the afternoon prayer until after he reached B. Qurayza (705). The apostle sent `Ali forward with his banner and the men hastened to it. ...[Sirat, p. 461]

The apostle besieged them for twenty-five nights until they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts.

Now Huyayy b. Akhtab had gone with B. Qurayza into their forts when Quraysh and Ghatafan had withdrawn and left them, to keep his word to Ka`b b. Asad; and when they felt sure that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them Ka`b b. Asad said to them: 'O Jews, you can see what has happened to you; I offer you three alternatives. Take which you please.' (i) We will follow this man and accept him as true, for by God it has become plain to you that he is a prophet who has been sent and that it is he that you find mentioned in your scripture, and then your lives, your property, your women and children will be saved. They said, 'We will never abandon the laws of the Torah and never change it for another.' He said, 'Then if you won't accept this suggestion (ii) let us kill our wives and children and send men with their swords drawn to Muhammad and his companions leaving no encumbrances behind us, until God decides between us and Muhammad. If we perish, we perish, and we shall not leave children behind us to cause us anxiety. If we conquer we can acquire other wives and children.' They said, 'Should we kill these poor creatures? What would be the good of life when they were dead?' He said, 'Then if you will not accept this suggestion (iii) tonight is the eve of the sabbath and it may well be that Muhammad and his companions will feel secure from us then, so come down, perhaps we can take Muhammad and his companions by surprise.' They said: 'Are we to profane our sabbath and do on the sabbath what those before us of whom you well know did and were turned into apes?' He answered, 'Not a single man among you from the day of your birth has ever passed a night resolved to do what he knows ought to be done.'[Sirat, pp. 461-462]

It is not clear to me how serious this "inside discussion" is to be taken. How would Ibn Ishaq know about it? It looks like he tries to give a reason why they might not have become Muslims and saved their lives that way as most of the Arab tribes did. Whatever the authenticity of this discussion, it shows that the Jews would not even transgress the law of their book, the Torah, in the face of danger for their life. That doesn't harmonize well with the charges of frivolously corrupting it for a small price as the accusation in the Qur'an wants to indicate.

One more observation on the above paragraph:

Now Huyayy b. Akhtab had gone with B. Qurayza into their forts when Quraysh and Ghatafan had withdrawn and left them, to keep his word to Ka`b b. Asad; and when they felt sure that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them Ka`b b. Asad said to them: 'O Jews, you can see what has happened to you; I offer you three alternatives. ...

And then they discussed the alternatives and we read of their reaction. Whether the proposed alternatives are factional or fictional is not so important at this point. The reason for their discussion is more likely within the kernel of truth. What does it mean that "the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them"? Maybe we can't say that yet, but we should keep that phrase in mind. The text in "Sirat Rasul Allah" continues:

Then they sent to the apostle saying, 'Send us Abu Lubaba b. `Abdu'l-Mundhir, brother of B. `Amr b. `Auf (for they were allies of al-Aus), that we may consult him.' So the apostle sent him to them, and when they saw him they got up to meet him. The women and children went up to him weeping in his face, and he felt sorry for them. They said, 'Oh Abu Lubaba, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad's judgement ?' He said, 'Yes,' and pointed with his hand to his throat, signifying slaughter. Abu Lubaba said, 'My feet had not moved from the spot before I knew that I had been false to God and His apostle.' Then he left them and did not go to the apostle but bound himself to one of the pillars in the mosque saying, 'I will not leave this place until God forgives me for what I have done,' and he promised God that he would never go to B. Qurayza and would never be seen in a town in which he had betrayed God and His apostle. [Sirat, p. 462]

What do we learn here? Abu Lubaba was a Muslim. But he was still trusted (because of former friendship?) by the Banu Qurayza (or he was just the only one available they could think of to maybe be sympathetic among the Muslim opponents), so they asked him for arbitration. When he meets his former friends he is overcome with compassion and even though as a good Muslim he can't other than say that they should submit to Muhammad, he indicates with a sign that Muhammad has the plan to kill them. But as soon as he has warned them in this way, he is overcome with remorse that he has revealed Muhammad's plan to the enemy. It follows a long story of Abu Lubaba chaining himself to a pillar and refusing to move until Muhammad would forgive him and how this happens .... which is omitted.

However, after the 25 days siege, the situation of the Banu Qurayza was now hopeless and the next morning the they officially surrendered.

In the morning they submitted to the apostle's judgement and al-Aus leapt up and said, 'O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.' Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: 'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?' When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [Sirat, p. 463]

Let us summarize the observations so far.

1. Remember the phrase from the beginning? It said "and when they felt sure that the apostle would not leave them until he had made an end of them". This indicates the B. Qurayza knew what Muhammad was up to. 2. When Abu Lubaba a Muslim who fought on Muhammad's side was asked by them what will happen and what they should do, he indicates slaughter. This is not a prejudiced fear of the enemy (we might often exaggerate what the enemies might do to us and have an image of them worse than their actual nature), this now is the expectation or knowledge of a Muslim about his own prophet. 3. When they surrender to Muhammad, the immediate reaction of the al-Aus is to intercede for them. Why would they remind the Prophet of what he had done earlier? Does that look like they expected him to be naturally merciful? If they expected him to be merciful why did they not rest in assurance that Muhammad would act with more mercy than any of them would have? This kind of immediate reaction shows they feared for their friends now that they have surrendered, and they bring the best argument they have to sway Muhammad from his plan. They appeal to his justice regarding how he treats his friends and since he did hear the intercession of the other tribe earlier he shouldn't be seen playing favorites with them and also acknowledge their earlier alliance with the Banu Qurayza. They do not appeal to his nature of mercy towards the Jews, but to his nature as statesman who needs to be impartial with all his companions. This reaction certainly shows that the al-Aus feared for their friends and did not have the impression Muhammad had mercy on his mind.

The people from al-Aus reminded Muhammad of his earlier decision in regard to the other Jewish tribe of the Banu Qaynuqa`. In order to understand this reference, let me quote what this is all about.

`Asim b. `Umar b. Qatada said that the B. Qaynuqa` were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the apostle and to go to war, between Badr and Uhud, and the apostle besieged them until they surrendered unconditionally. `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul went to him when God had put them in his power and said, 'O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients' (now they were allies of Khazraj), but the apostle put him off. He repeated the words, and the apostle turned away from him, whereupon he thrust his hand into the collar of the apostle's robe; the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black. He said, 'Confound you, let me go.' He answered, 'No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies;would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change.'The apostle said, 'You can have them.' [Sirat, p. 363]

What impression do we get of Muhammad's intention? How easily was he convinced to be merciful to them?

When `Abdullah interceded for them and insisted on it, Muhammad became extremely angry and it took great courage on the part of `Abdullah to stick to his request and even use physical force against Muhammad to hold him back from massacering all of the tribe. This confirms that Muhammad had the intention of killing the Banu Qaynuqa` from the very beginning and only was hindered by others from doing so. Muhammad was not easily swayed in his intention, but it took considerable effort hindering him. There was another tribe of Jews in Medina. the Banu al-Nadir. They are not refered to in our story, but they also contribute something to our understanding.

Concerning B. al-Nadir the Sura of Exile came down in which is recorded how God wreaked His vengeance on them and gave His apostle power over them and how He dealt with them. God said: 'He it is who turned out those who disbelieved of the scripture people from their homes to the first exile. ... 'So consider this, you who have understanding. Had not God prescribed deportation against them,' which was vengeance from God, 'He would have punished them in this world,' i.e. with the sword, 'and in the next world there would be the punishment of hell' as well. [Sirat, p. 438]

It seems not clear what but "something" happened to make Muhammad change his mind and which then is justified with this sura. (Sorry, but it was not God, not even in this good thing of sparing their life. God doesn't give revelations to people who are out to murder).But even in this event, the Sirat testifies that Muhammad originally intended to kill them all. Therefore, the historical records regarding the two "spared" tribes actually confirm that Muhammad was planning to kill all of the Qurayza just as he intended to deal with the tribes of the Banu Qaynuqa` and Banu al-Nadir. For some reason he was prevented in the first two cases. Forcibly in respect to the Banu Qainuqa, and we don't really know why in regard to the Banu al-Nadir. But: Deeds are judged by intention. The impression becomes strong that with the third tribe Muhammad now wants to make sure that he won't be losing out on his plans again. To me, the way he asks the al-Aus and then chooses Sa`d b. Mu`adh afterwards, seems planned to prevent another tribe from escaping, and his intentions be thwarted again.

Let us have a second look at the paragraph already quoted in the above. In the morning they submitted to the apostle's judgement and al-Aus leapt up and said, 'O Apostle, they are our allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently treated the allies of our brethren.' Now the apostle had besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus spoke thus the apostle said: 'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?' When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man. [Sirat, p. 463]

The next crucial player in the tragedy enters the scene. Who is Sa`d b. Mu`adh? Why is he chosen by Muhammad? Since there is a wealth of material available in the Sirat and Hadith about this man we can answer this question with high confidence.